Appeal No. 97-2596 Page 4
Application No. 08/319,345
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the § 103 rejection, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 19, mailed
November 22, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the appellants' brief (Paper No.
18, filed July 5, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed
January 13, 1997) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claim 1 is directed to a dovetail assembly component of a
gas turbine engine for mounting blades around a rotor disk
periphery. One region of the dovetail assembly component is a
transition portion between an area of minimum width, in cross
section, and a pressure face of the dovetail assembly component
and has deep compressive residual stresses imparted by laser
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007